[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[Fred Bauder]

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> An appeal is not futile. For one thing the policy might be changed or
>> it
>> might be decided the policy which exists does not apply in this case.
>
> Again, I wish to read this policy.  Where is it published?  And how
> was it established?  Did the ArbCom itself author it?

It was authored by the Arbitration Committee and posted on the
Administrators' Noticeboard several years ago. Basically it says don't
discuss issues regarding pedophilia activists on-wiki; send everything to
the Arbitration Committee. This is coupled with a policy of hearing ban
appeals privately.

>
>> If a close examination of his editing record shows no activist
>> activity,
>> it might be considered unfair to do external research which established
>> his identity.
>
> There has been no _assertion_ of activist activity on the wiki.  Shall
> we go ahead and block everyone pending close examination of their
> editing records?

No, we assume good faith.

>
>> But then, if Ryan could do it, anyone, including an investigative
>> journalist could have done it.
>
> Yes, and the same applies to murderers, rapists and neo-Nazis in our
> midst.  This is not a "slippery slope" argument (a contention that
> we'll be banning those editors next).  I'm asking how it would be
> worse for an investigative journalist to discover that a pedophile is
> editing than to discover that a murderer, rapist or neo-Nazi is
> editing.

Well, if Charlie Manson has internet access and is editing, we don't know
it. Murders and rapists, and I'm sure we have a few editing, don't
usually advocate for the practice. Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for
disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers. Pedophilia
is different, but not different from Charlie Manson. What they have in
common is seductive power which may be combined with illegal activity.
This is reflected in the public opprobrium which results.

Anonymous editing offers ample opportunities for drama. As we don't know
who many people are, sketchy allegations "outing" one or another user can
easily gain traction, particularly on external sites.

Fred